I'm sure this rant has been done before, but I think there should be some level of quality associated with a high IFA budget. The past two seasons in one world, I've had a budget of $15M and $25-30M to spend and have been left holding the bag both times.

This season, I've seen over 75 IFAs and only one asking for more than $2M. No quality whatsoever. We've only had one IFA in the whole world so far sign for more than $8M. It's ridiculous that no one can see anything of quality.

Not saying this to start an argument, but over in Suggestions there's a thread about how and/or whether player development should be made less predictable. Now a request for more predictability.
I don't mind IFA the way it is because it seems to be the one part of the game that is a total crapshoot. This past season in Riley we had what every owner called the best IFA season ever. So many good IFAs that pretty much everyone with prospect money to spend got a major league prospect. I even got one, and I don't consider myself an IFA player.
This after three seasons in a row with less than five future studs coming out. Probably wont happen again for a long time.

I was told by an owner who's played much longer than I have that HBD used to be played without the Transfer Budget option, at which time more teams had chances to get IFAs... And no one could bid 30 million on a player. That must have been better.

Posted by Jtpsops on 9/2/2013 12:59:00 PM (view original):I'm sure this rant has been done before, but I think there should be some level of quality associated with a high IFA budget. The past two seasons in one world, I've had a budget of $15M and $25-30M to spend and have been left holding the bag both times.

This season, I've seen over 75 IFAs and only one asking for more than $2M. No quality whatsoever. We've only had one IFA in the whole world so far sign for more than $8M. It's ridiculous that no one can see anything of quality.

Why do you feel like you should be entitled to quality IFA's?

There should be an element of risk involved with budgeting for prospects. We sometimes get crappy draft classes. No reason why we shouldn't occasionally get crap IFA classes.

Then allow more budget flexibility. I had a good team with no glaring needs and a reasonable payroll. And since WIS only lets you adjust scouting, etc. in increments of 4, I didn't really have other options for spending that money. If we're not guaranteed any level of quality, then give us more options to put that money elsewhere. I'm not even saying there has to be a world-changing stud every year, but at least some guys that are worthy of spending money on.

I'll be honest - I'm not sure exactly what I'm proposing. All I know is it seems very wrong that with a $15-20M IFA scouting budget, seeing 75-100 IFAs, there is maybe 1-2 that could possibly contribute at the ML level. I realize I'm not going to see every IFA and I'm not making that argument. But when I see the amount I've seen with almost zero quality, to me that's a problem. In real life, I'd fire my scouts for being so incredibly incompetent and wasting my budget. But obviously that's not an option in the game.

I know it's been mentioned before, but perhaps those who want to go after IFAs can select scouts with specific attributes - maybe you invest all in scouting pitchers, so you get some quality there, but you don't see any hitters, etc. Just something to make it so it's not "Here HBD - here's my IFA scouting and prospect budget. Hopefully something good randomly pops out for me." At least if there's some choice involved (by position, region, etc.), then if I strike out, it's because I didn't make the right choice - not just because of random chance gone wrong.

Development is very predictable. An IFA asking for $7 mil to sign is going to be a major leaguer using just an average development plan (having him spend 3 seasons in the minors, moving up a level a season, having half way decent coaches, etc...) baring multiple injury setbacks, which happen far less frequently in this game than they do in real life.

The unpredictable nature of it, is you set a budget and you have no clue what the IFA or draft class is going to look like. There is no garuntee that when you spend the $20 mil max, you're going to see the best IFAs/draftees. I recently took over an old team of mine that had been run into the ground. The latest owner never bothered to show up after budget day, no coaches were hired, no free agents, team was worn down, etc. when I took over midseason. Despite a $9 mil IFA budget, I saw and signed the best IFA I've ever seen (at least in terms of asking price and current ratings, we'll see how he develops) while several owners w/ $16 mil + in their IFA scouting never saw him. Lucky me, sucks for the guys who had budgetted big.

You had plenty of options w/ that money. You can move prospect money as much as you want in a season b/w 6 & 20 mil. You could ahve used $14 mil to sign ML player or two, you could have used the cap space to take on somebody's expensive vet while they rebuild in exchange for a low level prospect. You also didn't get left holding the bag w/ your $25-$30 mil in prospect money the season before, you made a calculated gamble that you could use that money to sign a star, you likely passed on a handful of guys who could have helped your future ML teams hoping for a hall of famer. You made a gamble, it didn't work out. The last thing this game needs is more predicatability.

Posted by damag on 9/4/2013 11:35:00 AM (view original):"In real life", anyone spending big money on a Japanese pitcher before Darvish was a fool, because the quality of J-Ball is not major league. And they throw 300 pitches a game. Bad investment.

Whoever spent big money on Cespedes was going to do so based on a Youtube video and a few batting practices. Everyone knew Cubans didn't pan out.

If Puig's mommy and daddy hadn't had a baby, there wouldn't be a Puig.

It's possible this sim actually gives you a hit rate better than IRL - probably because of user demand.

There is little doubt (in my mind anyways, I don't have any data to back this up) that the hit rate on IFAs in this game is way higher than it is in real life. In real life, teams field domican league teams and venzualean league teams full of guys signed for the bare minimum in hopes that they develop from a 16 year old nothing into a young 20s stud. Very few of them turn into anything of significance. Heck most of them probably never find their way into the states on a short season rookie league team.

We should sign IFA at 16, seeing only current ratings.
Add a Dominican League for international players.
Have all those players develop based off a DITR-type model, where they can either get huge jumps at the end of the year in those two years, or nothing.
Then they develop in the same pattern as other prospects.

It would reduce the cost of internationals, while adding some surprises that a lot of people want.

That said sounds like a safer bet would be to take a more balanced approach with your budget to avoid the big gamble rolling snakes eyes. Instead of trying to change the rules to fit your needs try changing your approach.